By David Crystal

New from Cambridge University Press!

By Peter Mark Roget

This book "supplies a vocabulary of English words and idiomatic phrases 'arranged … according to the ideas which they express'. The thesaurus, continually expanded and updated, has always remained in print, but this reissued first edition shows the impressive breadth of Roget's own knowledge and interests."

SUMMARYThis book presents a comprehensive analysis of receptive multilingualism inEurope. It not only scrutinizes a relatively neglected topic within the field ofmultilingualism but does so with the purpose of revealing new perspectives fromdifferent theoretical frameworks on the linguistic analyses of receptivemultilingualism in Europe, it stimulates the readers, and sets the agenda forfuture research. Another significant contribution of the book is that, whileprincipally focusing on receptive multilingualism, it helps the readerreconstruct the historical developments of various multilingual constellationsin Europe.

The book is an edited collection of chapters consisting of four main parts: PartI: Historical development of receptive multilingualism; Part II: Receptivemultilingualism in discourse; Part III: Testing mutual understanding inreceptive multilingual communication; and Part IV: Determining the possibilitiesof reading comprehension in related languages. Each chapter of these parts is aseparate paper examining receptive multilingualism in a special context and froma different perspective. Notes and the list of references cited are given aftereach paper as is the case in such collections, while the name and subjectindices are placed at the end of the book. This review will start with achapter-by-chapter concise description and will then offer a critical evaluationof the book as a whole.

Studies on receptive multilingualism have a long tradition going back to theearly fifties. With Einar Haugen's seminal work entitled (in the revised Englishversion) ''Semi-communication: the language gap in Scandinavia'' (Haugen, 1966),the phenomenon of receptive multilingualism was first introduced into the fieldwith the term 'semi-communication'. Following that and using the term 'receptivemultilingualism', multilingual communication between neighboring languages wasof interest to many other researchers. To list some of them, communication amongScandinavians (Maurud, 1976; Zeevaert, 2004), Spanish and Portuguese (Jensen,1989) and Slovakian and Czech (Budovicova, 1987) attracted attention. This bookcan be considered as a refreshing addition to the existing work on receptivemultilingualism.

The introductory chapter by the editors clarifies the focus of the book bydefining the concept of receptive multilingualism as ''the language constellationin which interlocutors use their respective mother tongues while speaking toeach other'' (p.1). Specifying the three tacit assumptions that the volume aimsto challenge in the field of multilingual communication research, the editorspresent the main line of arguments pursued by each chapter (p. 2):

1. Multilingualism is a social phenomenon deeply embedded in European languagehistory.2. Multilingual understanding does not necessarily require near-native languagecompetency.3. English as lingua franca is not the one and only solution for interlingualcommunication in Europe.

The editors, then, referring to the contributions in this volume briefly explaintheir position vis-à-vis these assumptions. To start with the first assumption,the fact that linguistic and cultural diversity is profoundly settled in thehistory of Europe has its reflections on the present linguistic situation andthe related principles of European Union, which are declared by the Europeanmotto ''unity in diversity''. Considering the second assumption, the editors statethat near-native language competency is no longer a precondition for successfulmultilingual communication to occur in various settings. Instead, the editorsemphasize the necessity for the description of new oral and written competenciesinvolving notions like meta-linguistic and intercultural understanding, actionand institutional knowledge. As for the third assumption, lingua franca English,the editors highlight the fact that English is an important internationallanguage which, however, should not be regarded as the one and only solution forinterlingual communication in Europe. On the contrary, they propose the methodof receptive multilingualism as an efficient way for mutual comprehensiondepending on the typological distance of the languages involved, the languagecompetencies of the participants, and the preconditions of the communicationcontext. The editorial introduction ends with an outline of each chapter writtenby researchers from a wide spread of affiliations.

Part I, entitled ''Historical development of receptive multilingualism'', consistsof two chapters. The first chapter in this part presents a comprehensible surveyof the linguistic situation in northern Europe in the late Middle Ages and earlyModern Times (Chapter 1: Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in theMiddle ages: A description of a scenario, by Kurt Braunmüller. pp. 25-47).Braunmüller starts his article with the reproach that receptive multilingualismhas not received sufficient attention as opposed to the other forms ofactive/productive bilingualism and it has still not been considered as amanifestation of bilingualism in its own right. Referring to the earlymanifestations of receptive multilingualism when giving the features thatdistinguish receptive multilingualism and productive bi/multilingualism, hestates that especially between genetically closely related languages (e.g. therelationship between Low German and the Scandinavian languages/dialectsexplained in this article) receptive multilingualism was then a kind ofasymmetric communication restricted to face-to-face interaction. The linguisticforms played only a marginal role. Linguistic fluency or a comprehensiveunderstanding of the addressee's language was neither necessary nor expected. Itwas more purpose-oriented and context or addressee-dependent. Perhaps mostimportant of all, Braunmüller reminds us that at that time perfect command of alanguage was not something expected. However, more recently, due to the rise ofnationalism, language and identity have become closely intertwined and receptivemultilingualism has lost its status. Based on the evidence of the morphologicalform of the definite articles and periphrastic genitive constructions in LowGerman and the Scandinavian languages, Braunmüller concludes his article withtwo important remarks: 1) Nationalism put an end to receptive multilingualismwhich was an unmediated communication between genetically closely relatedlanguages and 2) Receptive multilingualism represents a starting point for SLA,especially for adults.

The second chapter in Part I is another historical example of receptivemultilingualism (Chapter 2: Linguistic diversity in Habsburg Austria as a modelfor modern European language policy, by Rosita Rindler-Schjerve and Eva Vetter.pp. 49-70). The main argument of this paper is that the language policy of thenineteenth-century Habsburg Empire can be considered a promising example ofmultilingual management and planning since it shows a potential that projectsinto present-day multilingual Europe. The article starts by recalling one of themain articles (Art.I-3) of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe,that ''the European Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguisticdiversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded andenhanced'' (49) which produced the motto ''unified in diversity''. The writers thendescribe the Habsburg model of multilingualism in relation to the EuropeanUnion. Unlike the developing linguistic homogenization taking place at thattime, the Habsburg Empire had principles like ''pluralist equality'' and''democratic participation''. Though there were some attempts at making German thelanguage of the politically dominant group, it was never institutionalized overthe state. The writers exemplify this fact, giving evidence from three specificdomains of the empire: education, administration and the judiciary. The maincontribution of the article comes with ''the lessons to be learned''. Regardingthe success and failure of the language policy in the Habsburg Empire, thewriters raise important issues which might be of use for democraticdecision-making in the context of language policy and multilingualism in presentday Europe. Although one should not draw an exact parallel between the HabsburgEmpire and the EU, the principle of 'equality' and 'diversity' are what seem tobe in common. The first lesson to be learned is that, contrary to the tendencytowards ''English only'' within EU institutions, there is a need for a balancedlinguistic policy which will encourage linguistic diversity in multilingualcommunication. The Habsburg Empire model can be conceived as a good historicalcase study which might give inspirations for new projects in language contactenvironments and for new solutions for presently existing conflicting scenarios.

Part II, ''Receptive multilingualism in discourse'', opens with Anne Ribbert andJan D. ten Thije's article (Chapter 3: Receptive multilingualism in Dutch-Germanintercultural team cooperation. pp. 73-101). The article aims to illustrate theoccurrence of receptive multilingualism in Dutch-German team cooperation as aform of institutional communication. Unlike the first two articles focusing onthe genetically closely related Scandinavian languages, this paper deals withDutch-German as less close languages. The combination of the languages is notonly interesting for their being genetically less close languages, but alsobecause receptive multilingualism is rare between the Dutch and the German. Incases where they come into contact, either one of the interlocutors adapts thelanguage of the other, or English is used as a lingua franca. The chapter firstreviews the factors supporting the occurrences of receptive multilingualism inrelation to House and Rehbein's (2004:3) parameters of multilingualcommunication, namely factors referring to social and linguistic relationsbetween nation states, the institutional constellations within nation states andfactors related to the perspectives of the individual interactants. Receptivemultilingualism, following these factors is supposed to occur in situationswhere the two languages and their speakers have an equal socio-political status(House and Rehbein, 2004), when the speakers have enough experience with othercultures, when the speakers' perception of the actual linguistic distance is nottoo far - the notion 'psychotypology', and when speakers are familiar with thephenomenon of receptive multilingualism itself in order to adequately use it(Braunmüller and Zeevaert, 2001). As for the analyses, the writers providerepresentative extracts from discourse between a Dutch and a German teacherworking at the Goethe-Institute Amsterdam. The findings reveal the importance ofinstitutionalized key words as special means to ensure mutual understanding.This section is the most remarkable section of this chapter. The authors,referring to Koole and ten Thije's (1994) characterization of institutional keywords, analyze the institutional discourse. In line with their descriptions, itbecomes noticeable that keywords receive an institution-specific meaning thathelps the interlocutors to activate common institutional knowledge and toestablish mutual understanding. Last but not least, the authors explain howthese key words contribute to the understanding of intercultural differences byintroducing Rehbein's (2006) concept of cultural apparatus.

The second chapter in Part II, authored by Ludger Zeevaert, provides atheoretical subsumption of the term receptive multilingualism in connection withthe terms semi-communication and intercomprehension (Chapter 4: Receptivemultilingualism and inter-Scandinavian semi-communication. pp. 103-135).Defining receptive multilingualism as a form of communication where ''bothinterlocutors speak their own language and at the same time are able tounderstand the language of their counterpart'' (104), the author emphasizes theactive role of the hearer. That is, similar to Rehbein's view of the hearerwithin the theory of Functional Pragmatics (2006), and referring to Maturana(1998), the author explains how information is created with the contribution ofthe hearer. Utilizing examples taken from interscandinavan semi-communication,as many others in the volume, the article calls attention to the role of acommon background of the interlocutors, like Ribbert and ten Thije did in theprevious chapter. This study is important due to two reasons: first, because itconsiders the hearer as the key person in receptive multilingual communication;and second, it presents receptive multilingualism in Scandinavia as analternative to lingua franca communication in the European Union which consistsof countries sharing a common cultural background.

Chapter 5 outlines the Swiss model of multilingualism and is titled ''Receptivemultilingualism in Switzerland and the case of Biel/Bienne'' (by Iwar Werlen. Pp.137-157). The article recaps four models of interlingual communication inSwitzerland: 1) the Swiss model in which every speaker speaks their own languageand expects the others to understand them, 2) the Biel/Bienne model, thebilingual model, 3) the default model, a monolingual model in which the languageof the territory is spoken by everyone, and 4) lingua franca English.Particularly, the article investigates how the choice of language inconversations varies in the officially bilingual (German-French) cities ofBiel/Bienne and Fribourg/Freiburg where the default language is French. Theresults reveal that in Biel/Bienne the addresser's language leads to anaccommodation of the addressee, while in Fribourg/Freiburg when a person isaddressed in German the conversation continues in a receptive multilingual modeunless the addresser switches to French. The article is important for tworeasons: 1) it presents receptive multilingualism as a democratic option formultilingual societies, and 2) it provides an excellent example for howreceptive multilingualism is officially fostered.

In contradiction to the previous chapter, in chapter 6 Georges Lüdi proclaimsthat the Swiss model does not work as successfully as it is claimed (Chapter 6:The Swiss model of plurilingual communication. pp. 159-178). Giving examples ofauthentic cross-linguistic communication at work in Switzerland, the authorinstead proposes that in face-to-face interactions speakers profit from all thecommunicative resources they share. Based on the data obtained in a monolingualFrench-speaking and a monolingual German-speaking bank, the article shows thatrather than choosing the Swiss model or the lingua franca English, many otherplurilingual communication techniques are employed. In particular, the observedtechniques were: accommodating to the other language when a communicativeproblem appears, language mixing, asking linguistically more skilled people totranslate or briefly summarize, or choosing the default (L1) in emotionallyimportant moments.

Another article that analyzes receptive multilingualism in businesscommunication is authored by Bettina Dresemann (Chapter 7: Receptivemultilingualism in business discourses. pp. 179-193). Though Zeevaert (in thisvolume) along with many other studies blame linguistic deficits or differentcultural backgrounds for the communicative problems that arise in interculturalcommunication, the author (based on Loss, 1999) in line with the argumentationof Lüdi (Chapter 6 in this volume) argues that, in spite of the fact that theparticipants may lack linguistic and cultural knowledge of the other party, forsuccessful communication to occur in multilingual business discoursesinterlocutors create a common ground for their interactions by using cues andcombine them with other forms of knowledge, such a pragmatic knowledge, generalknowledge or professional knowledge to interpret the situation.

The last chapter investigating receptive multilingualism in discourse considersthe phenomenon of English as a lingua franca, which is perceived as the leadingoption for communication in multilingual discourses (Chapter 8: Speaker stancesin native and non-native English conversation: I + verb constructions, by NicoleBaumgarten and Juliane House. pp. 195-214). The article examines subjectivity indiscourse of native and non-native speakers of English in L1 and English as thelingua franca (ELF) with respect to the use of how I + verb constructions suchas ''I think'', ''I don't know'', ''I mean''. It reports discrepancies in terms oflinguistic subjectivity between these three groups. This paper isthought-provoking and stimulating, since the findings related to ELF speakersprovide further evidence for arguments against lingua franca communication. Thesecond important contribution of the article comes with the 'let-it-pass'strategy that is introduced as a characteristic feature of ELF talk. The term,referring to House (1999 and 2002), is described as to the participants'tendency to ignore grammatically incorrect or incomprehensible utterances andfocus more on the content of information for the sake of successful communication.

Part III, entitled ''Testing mutual understanding in receptive multilingualcommunication'', has two contributions examining the mutual intelligibility ofinterscandinavan communication. The first article (Chapter 9: Understandingdifferences in inter-Scandinavian language understanding, by Gerke Doetjes. pp.217-230) is an overview of the studies conducted on inter-Scandinavian languageunderstanding. Doetjes argues that the studies included in the overview are farbehind in presenting how well Scandinavians understand each other's language,due to the fact that the results are affected by the method chosen to testmutual intelligibility. The article investigates language understanding based onsix different test types: 1) open questions, 2) T/F questions, 3) multiplechoice questions, 4) word translation, 5) summary, and 6) short summary. Thestudies cited by Doetjes show that, despite the claim that within theinter-Scandinavian context Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are mutuallyintelligible languages, Norwegians are the most capable of successfullymastering inter-Scandinavian communication. Danes and Swedes, on the other hand,reveal problems in understanding each other.

A second chapter testing mutual understanding among the speakers of Scandinavianlanguages is authored by Lars-Olof Delsing (Chapter 10: Scandinavianintercomprehension today. pp. 231-246). In particular, the study tests thedegree of intelligibility in Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and English via themethods of open questions and translations. The primary intention of the studyis to compare the results with those of Maurud (1976), because there have beensubstantial changes concerning language choice and language policy inScandinavian countries since the 1970s. The results obtained from 1200 pupilsare quite similar to those of Doetjes (in this volume) and Maurud (1976), inthat the Norwegians seem to understand the neighboring languages better than theSwedes and the Danes, and the Danes are better than the Swedes.

The last part of the book, Part IV, is devoted to ''Determining the possibilitiesof reading comprehension in related languages''. The first chapter of this part(Chapter 11: Interlingual text comprehension, by René van Bezooijen andCharlotte Gooskens. pp. 249-264) assesses the relative intelligibility ofwritten Frisian and Afrikaans for speakers of Dutch considering two factors:attitudes towards the languages and the linguistic distance. The resultsobtained from 20 native Dutch language students show that written Frisian ismore difficult for them than Afrikaans. Moreover, the authors report that thisresult has no significant correlation to the attitudes developed towards theselanguages on an individual level. That the article measures linguistic distancebetween the languages involved predominantly on account of the number ofcognates and non-cognates is a very important contribution. The article'scontribution becomes even more appealing with the finding that rather than thenumber of cognates, the number of non-cognates plays a prominent role infostering the degree of understanding.

As do the other papers in this part, Madeline Lutjeharms discusses readingcomprehension in related languages (Chapter 12: Processing levels inforeign-language reading. pp. 265-284). The author aims to present an overviewof studies on reading in a foreign language, particularly when the languages arerelated. Considering the reading process as a form of information processing,the article provides explanations of processing levels of the reading processstarting with eye movements, and moving to word recognition and sentenceprocessing. Although the article does not examine reading comprehension in aspecific receptive multilingual discourse, it is noteworthy in that it does notonly highlight the importance of the linguistic distance in reading L2 texts ,as in the other papers in the volume, but also the remoteness of the linguisticfeatures of the languages involved.

The following chapter, authored by Robert Möller (Chapter 13: A computer-basedexploration of the lexical possibilities of intercomprehension. pp. 285-305), isbased on the assumption that cognate words provide an excellent basis to developreceptive competence between languages. Möller in this article explores theextent of the Dutch and German cognates by means of a computer program. Theauthor presents the Levenshtein algorithm so as to provide a reliable measure oflexical accessibility. The findings propose that of the 5000 common Dutch words75% are accessible for German readers, which provides enough evidence to supportDutch- German receptive multilingualism (the same phenomenon is also discussedby Ribbert and ten Thije in this volume). This is an informative and inspiringchapter which might encourage further research on identification of recognizablecognates and consequently on receptive competencies between other languages.

The last chapter of the book is relatively different from the rest as it focuseson acquisition of an L3 (Chapter 14: How can DafnE and EuroComGerm contribute tothe concept of receptive multilingualism, by Britta Hufeisen and Nicole Marx.pp. 307-321). This article, within the theoretical framework of two models,Meißner's Spontaneous Learner Grammar and Hufeisen's Factor model, aims to helpstudents identify the relevant knowledge of their previously known languages togain receptive competencies in learning a new language. The article draws adistinction between acquisition of an L2 and an L3 with the claim that in mostEuropean countries English is taught as the first foreign language and when aperson decides to learn another European language like German or French, he isalready equipped with some knowledge of a foreign language which eases hislearning process of the new language. Providing results from two researches,DafnE and EuroComGerm, the authors suggest that in order to promote receptivemultilingualism among EU citizens, learners of a new language (L3) should betrained to link and use their knowledge of a related, formerly learned language(L2).

EVALUATION_Receptive Multilingualism_ is a stimulating, novel and enjoyable book thatbrings together articles which examine multilingualism from a newer perspective.In this respect, the volume will indisputably inspire further research in thisfield. Despite the fact that the volume is a collection of articles from diversetheoretical frameworks, there are some issues raised in almost all articles. Tostart with the European motto unity in diversity is referred to by manyarticles. The motto is used to describe the ideal linguistic situation inEurope, emphasizing the importance of multilingual communication (with thecharacterization of House & Rehbein, 2004) and multilingual education. Thesecond issue discussed in all articles is English as a lingua franca (ELF).Although House (2003) regards ELF as a language for communication, a usefulcommunicative tool especially in international encounters rather then as athreat to national languages and multilingualism, many articles in the volumeconsider ELF as a serious reason for receptive multilingualism losing its statusin European countries. Last but not least, the volume is thought-provoking inthat it urges some political and educational decisions to be taken to supportreceptive multilingualism which is presented as 1) a reasonable preference ofmultilingual communication, and 2) an opportunity to avoid linguisticdiscrimination (Zeevaert, in this volume).

The line of attack in which the chapters are organized in the volume helps thereader to pursue the topics and connect between the chapters and discussionssmoothly. The standard of the chapters are noticeably high. Even though theeditors limited the context of receptive multilingualism to Europe, it would bevery interesting to learn about receptive multilingualism in other languagecontact areas such as in Africa or in Asia in another volume. All in all, Ihighly recommend the volume for those interested in multilingual communication.

House, Juliane. (1999) Misunderstanding in intercultural communication:Interactions in English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility.In _Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language_, C. Gnutzmann (ed),Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 73-93.

House, Juliane. (2003) English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism?_Journal of Sociolinguistics_ 7/4, 556-578.

ABOUT THE REVIEWERDr. Çiğdem Sağın-Şimşek is a lecturer teaching various linguistics and ELTcourses at Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Her researchinterests include second and third language acquisition, multilingualism andinterlingual communication.